Tom Growney Equipment, Inc. v. Shelley Irrigation Development, Inc., Appeal of Stompoly & Even, P.C
Opinion
Opinion
Anderson, J.
The law firm of Stompoly & Even (“appellant”) appeals a judgment in favor of Tom Growney Equipment, Inc. (“Grow-ney”) which imposed $5,000 in sanctions against the firm pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. The sole subject of this appeal concerns the propriety of the district court’s imposition of sanctions under Rule 11 against appellant for making frivolous claims, one of which was allegedly made for coercive purposes. The principal contention of appellant is that the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions by the district court without affording them prior notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard violates due process. We agree.
I. BACKGROUND
The underlying case involved a rental agreement between Growney and Shelley Irrigation Development, Inc. (“Shelley”).
Growney brought an action against Shelley seeking recovery of unpaid rental installments and late charges on a John Deere Model 670A motorgrader. The complaint also sought a prejudgment order of replevin directing Shelley to return the mo-torgrader to Growney. The court entered an order on November 13, 1984, directing the marshal to take control of the motor-grader and deliver it to Growney.